About this Show

Hardball With Chris Matthews

News/Business. (2010) New. (CC)

NETWORK

DURATION
01:00:00

RATING

SCANNED IN

SOURCE

TUNER

VIDEO CODEC
mpeg2video

AUDIO CODEC
mp2

PIXEL WIDTH
720

PIXEL HEIGHT
480

TOPIC FREQUENCY

Us 15, Palin 8, Sarah Palin 6, Iraq 6, Washington 6, Glenn Beck 5, Joe 5, America 5, Iowa 5, Beck 4, Ken Melman 4, Msnbc 4, Jon Runyan 3, Runyan 3, Rajiv 3, Afghanistan 3, Alaska 3, Ronald Reagan 2, Mccain 2, Steve Schmid 2,
Borrow a DVD
of this show
  MSNBC    Hardball With Chris Matthews    News/Business.   
   (2010) New. (CC)  

    September 1, 2010
    5:00 - 6:00pm EDT  

5:00pm
have not been rendered safe, and at this point we are -- the operation at this point is to make sure that those devices are rendered safe and removed. again, all the hostages were -- got out safely. i don't believe that there's any injuries, but we will confirm that once we get a chance to -- to talk at more length with the hostages. again, we also have to clear the rest of the building. where we can see the suspect, we know it's clear, but there's further area on the first floor of the building that has not been checked yet, so obviously we still have more to do, but at this point the suspect is in custody. i do not know his condition at
5:01pm
this point, and the three hostages that we could see that were near the suspect are -- have been safely removed. >> why did you shoot him? >> obviously that -- there's going -- any time there's a use of deadly force by police officers, it's a long investigation and that will go through the investigative process. >> was he threatening the hostages at that point? >> based on the information that we had, we believed that it was -- that the hostages' lives were in danger. >> was he shot from the inside? >> i don't know the answer to that. >> just to be clear, once he was shot, the explosives went off? >> i don't know the order in which he went down and the explosive device went off. >> [ inaudible question ]
5:02pm
>> we had been talking to him for several hours, and he had a wide range of emotions during our negotiations. >> and what was his complaint directed at the discovery communications building? >> you know, i don't have all that information. i know that he had some history with folks at discovery channel, and i believe in fact that he was arrested here a couple of years ago, and so we -- there is some history between he and the discovery folks. >> when the explosion went off, was he wearing it? >> i -- i don't know. i don't have any information on the condition of the suspect. >> is he dead? >> i don't have any information on the condition of the suspect. i don't have any information. >> when was your last communication with him? >> just a few minutes before it was over. >> pardon me. >> what time did the shooting happen? >> 4:48. >> and chief, what other devices are you referring to when you
5:03pm
say that there are other devices in the building? >> there are other devices that we suspect may be explosive devices that we don't know why they are in backpacks, and we don't know for certain who brought them in and what they are. we suspect that he may have brought them in, so we have to render them safe before this operation is over. >> [ inaudible question ] >> i don't know the suspect's condition. >> but you know that he's in custody? >> we know that he's in custody. >> was he alive when you took him out? >> i don't know the condition of the suspect at this point. >> is he on the way to the hospital, or is he there? do you know anything like that? >> he -- i don't believe we've removed him from the building. again, the building is not safe because of the devices that we have not rendered safe in that ar area. >> do you believe more than one person was involved in placing the backpacks? >> the investigative part of this is just beginning. there's a lot of information
5:04pm
that we need to go through, and we'll have another briefing when we get more information. thank you. >> chief, can you tell us if the hostages were male or female? >> there we get the update happening right here at the top of the hour, learning that montgomery county police officials are confirming that the suspect in this case, james jae lee, was shot while holding three hostages, but they will not confirm whether this was any type of a fatal shot. >> right. we do know also from the captain manger, chief manger there, that there was smoke and a pop leading us to believe that there was something in the canisters, the silver canisters that witnesses say was on mr. lee's back. let's go to tom costello on the scene. tom, we've been waiting for an update since 3:50. that was the last update. quite a surprise to have the chief or the captain come out and say that the suspect had been shot and that three hostages are safe. >> yeah. i'm just -- i thought i heard a
5:05pm
helicopter and now we have suvs speeding up to the scene. i don't know if you can see that. >> yeah. >> that may or may not be a part of that equation. >> right. >> i think a lot of us were surprised by that. they clearly had been hoping for a peaceful resolution. they were talking to him for some time on the phone and it would appear that either his body language or his words have convinced the police that they couldn't take the chance and that they had to take a chance and take a shot and take out suspect to save the lives of the hostages. the question is, of course, you know, how serious of a threat right now do those potential explosives pose? we don't know that. we know that when he first entered the building he was believed to have strapped to his person something that is described as some sort of a cylinder in the front and also in the back, and that people believed that that was some sort of a homemade device, a bomb of some sort. we were told perhaps propane, and now the chief is telling us
5:06pm
that in addition to that it appears as though there were backpacks potentially containing explosives. clearly there was another dynamic here. more than one explosive or more than one that the police were worried about. his behavior they were concerned about, clearly concerned for the safety of the hostages, and so that we now know that a little after 5:00 on the east coast the suspect is in custody. i thought it was a little unclear. i specifically asked has he been taken away to the hospital? >> right. >> if he was shot, and the chief said he didn't believe so, so i don't know if that's because he still has a device strapped to him and they are worried about that detonating, or if it's because his injuries are so minor that he didn't need to go to the hospital, but i thought that that was rather interesting. we've not heard sirens that would suggest an ambulance or paramedics. we know they are on standby. we haven't heard them and did not hear any sort of explosive go off here at our location. >> that's what i was going to ask you, tom, because police indicated there was a pop,
5:07pm
smoke, and at least we know one shot fired to, you know, from them to the suspect, and all of this happening with so many members of the media around and no indication that they were trying to end this, and as you pointed out, that the authorities say that -- that he indicated a wide range of emotions which obviously led to them shooting the suspect. >> right, and now that the suspect is in custody, i think it's fair to characterize his statement that we've all been very delicately quoting from as really rambling and at times just non-sensical. we didn't want to say that when we thought he might be watching and had hostages. it's really non-sensical. he's trying to make some points about the population of the earth and overpopulation, but it is -- it is just a rambling diatribe. one possible reason why we didn't hear anything is because if this was occurring inside the discovery building headquarters there, which is, i don't know, less than a quarter mile away. it's not that far, but i think
5:08pm
you have to suppose and presume that the police were in the building, and we know that he -- that the witnesses described the atrium or the lobby as an atrium. >> yeah. >> so in theory, i think it's entirely possible. thomas, you've been in there. >> yes. >> i think it's entirely possible, but you might have a better feel of the lobby, that they had a clean shot at some point from within the building. >> as you know from where the building sits there on that corner of the streets up above you, they are flanked with two-story window panes going around in a circular kind of way and then also where the desk sits there's a circular desk when you walk in and there's a receptionist and security guard behind them which would be the elevator bank and then also to the left of them are two doors that take you down the long corridor as we're seeing on the side of the building t.kind of gives it that l-shape, and you can walk down the doors to get to a different section of the
5:09pm
building. >> is it an atrium? >> there is an atrium. >> is it possible that police were within the building and they could spot him within the building? >> they could have been able to spot him from across the building, and as we spoke to melissa, one of the people who worked inside that building earlier, the way that the windows line up or the way that that "l" kicks out, you can look across and see into the lobby, and so you can see right into the building itself on the first floor. >> okay. >> okay. and we also know, as we've said, three hostages, all of them are safe. >> right. >> and that is, of course, the news that we were all hoping for. we did not have, by the way, a firm number of hostages so that's the first time that we had the number. we had heard from some witnesses that there were several people laying on the ground, but we didn't have an exact number so that firms up some pieces of information, but the question now remains, okay, how many potential explosive devices are there? where are they, and that's obviously the concern for the police and also the fire department that's on the scene
5:10pm
there. >> tom, you're not very far away, but i can't see your vantage point. would you be able to see if they have let those hostages out of there yet? >> well, i have to assume they are out of the building, because if they are concerned about the explosive devices. we have not seen any obvious signs of hostages on this side of the building. listen, i would presume that they are not going to run them down the street where all the media is. >> no. >> i would assume they would take them out the back. >> at some points they will have an ambulance or something just to treat the people for the stress alone. >> yes, absolutely. >> i've been on these kinds of scenes, as you have, and they will have like a little medevac area. that's why i was asking if you saw anything like that. >> yeah. no, i think i did spot earlier in the day a montgomery county paramedic vehicle up on the other side of the building, so i would assume that that's probably, or at least hidden around these buildings. that's probably where the fire department is staging. i don't have an exact location. >> do you know, did the authorities there indicate because they are not sure about the explosives, if you've got a
5:11pm
team going in to try to detonate if that's necessary, or how do we know any more about what they are going to do next here? >> yeah. i don't have any information on that at all, more than what the chief just said, and they are clearly concerned about that, but i've not seen from this vantage point. i've not seen -- at one point we saw armored vehicles running around but i haven't seen any more since then. >> tom costello live on the scene for us. >> thank you, tom. >> hearing from chief manger, in reference to these devices, and used the plural saying these devices need to be rendered safe. >> right. >> so we continue to wait and watch and see what happens. >> but at least we know at this point the three hostages are out of that situation safe. the gunman has been shot. we do not know his condition. we'll continue to update you on this, and in the meantime we'll join "hardball" in progress. gy , comes in a liquid gel. zyrtec® liquid gels work fast, so i can love the air®.
5:12pm
[ male announcer ] at ge capital, we're out there every day with clients like jetblue -- financing their fleet, sharing our expertise, and working with people who are changing the face of business in america. after 25 years in the aviation business, i kind of feel like if you're not having fun at what you do, then you've got the wrong job. my landing was better than yours. no, it wasn't. yes, it was. was not. yes, it was. what do you think? take one of the big ones out? nah. ♪ [ male announcer ] he's sweet, even with 1/3 less sugar than soda. kool-aid delivering more smiles per gallon. look at all this stuff for coffee. oh there's tons. french presses, expresso tampers, filters. it can get really complicated. not nearly as complicated as shipping it, though. i mean shipping is a hassle. not with priority mail flat rate boxes from the postal service. if it fits it ships anywhere in the country for a low flat rate. that is easy. best news i've heard all day! i'm soooo amped!
5:13pm
i mean not amped. excited. well, sort of amped. really kind of in between. have you ever thought about decaf? do you think that would help? yeah. priority mail flat rate box shipping starts at $4.95, only from the postal service.
5:14pm
welcome back to "hardball." last week former republican party chairman and bush campaign manager ken melman announced publicly that he is gay. he also said he plans to help build support for gay marriage. he joined the prominent conservative attorney ted olson, the u.s. solicitor general under george bush, in supporting the cause. they are not the only ones. here's what steve schmid, who steered john mccain's mccain in 2008 told "the huffington post." there is a strong conservative case to be made in favor of gay marriage. marriage is an institution that strengthens and stabilizes society, an institution that has the capacity to bring profound joy and happiness to people and it's a matter of equality and
5:15pm
keeping faith with one of the charters of the nation, the right to live your life. well, more considered what is called a conservative case for gay marriage. joe, are you glad to is have the unlikely support, republicans joining the ranks, and i want to ask in a minute if there's a problem going for same-sex marriage under the constitution or rather going state by state, but the first question is are you happy to have your new allies here? >> absolutely. every day we see more and more people moving in the direction of supporting marriage equality. as ken melman said, you know, the past is the past. his offer was to help move us forward, to do what he could, and i think, you know, we certainly don't have the luxury at this point in our movement to turn away any offer of help so whether it's ken melman or meghan mccain, elites within the republican party, well-respected
5:16pm
figures in the republican party whose opinion matters to republicans. >> you don't like the word elite? >> not that i don't like the word elite. >> ben ginsberg, ted olsen, the top dogs, and i'm doing it disparagely because i've yet to see right wing support for same-sex marriage, clark, so if you're going to make me make the case for that, go ahead. are the regular grass roots republicans with you, or is this just the elite republicans? >> no, it is a grass roots republicans, because we're talking about everyday people. your average log cabin republican donor is like your average rnc donor. i don't know if you know this, but $20 to $25 is the average donation of a log cabiner. that's a police officer in schenectady, new york, or a schoolteacher in lawrence, kansas, so, yeah, grass roots is on board. we've been on board. this is not new news. >> you're saying all kinds of people can be gay? >> sure. >> i'm just teasing, playing
5:17pm
steve colbert here for a minute. give me a break >> yeah >> let me ask you about the key question. first, joe, you've been following this. let me start with clarke because this is sort of a republican question. scalia, i've always watched callia. after the lawrence case on sodomy back a couple years ago he said this opens the door to perhaps a view under the liberty clause, under the due process clause, of perhaps opening up the gay marriage under the constitution as a right. whether he likes what he saw coming is another question. could scalia be the surprising vote in the supreme court for this case against prop 2 in california which would make it a right under our constitution to have a same-sex marriage? >> i'm not going to speak on behalf of justice scalia, but i will say if perry versus schwarzenegger does go up to a higher level, if it's escalated up to a supreme court case, that will be part of the argument that was made at a lower federal court, that it is against the constitution. we're talking about inalienable
5:18pm
rights here. it's not part of the preamble but a conservative tenet, individual liberty, individual responsibility. the case certainly can be made, and it will be made. mr. olsen has already made it once and will make it again. >> unless the crazies in your party get rid of the 14th amendment and then you'll have problem, right? >> i don't think -- actually there's not an official move to withdraw any amendments at this time. nice try, chris. >> joe, let me go to a liberal here. joe, it seems the situation that the right wing would like to give people life, liberty and property protected under the 14th amendment except due process being denied by due process and some of the crazier elements in the republican party are talking about getting rid of the whole amendment because they don't like birth citizenship or whatever you call it, the weirdness going on here. your thoughts? >> i think you're pointing out what maybe historically had been a two-way split within the republican party now feels like a three-way split, moderate
5:19pm
republicans and the voices coming forward speaking out for marriage. you've got the tea party which at least outwardly has gone to great lengths to avoid a discussion of social issues and then you've got, you know, the far right who have for a long time now been really the only voice out there against marriage equality offering up all sorts of reasons why it's a bad idea. >> yeah. >> and i think what is refreshing and helpful is a new chorus of voices coming forward countering that, and then you add to that the case in california for the first time where they had to bring evidence forward to suggest that marriage equality was a bad idea and as we saw they had nothing to offer, so, you know, you talked about the grass roots. it is true that among republican voters generally were lagging, you know, about 20 points or 30 points, 20 behind independents and again, as people like ken melman and others come forward, you'll see the numbers start to move because there's been no counter to the nutty right. >> well, here's steve schmid who ran the mccain campaign, quote, more and more conservatives are
5:20pm
saying opposition to gay marriage would not be a litmus test for membership in the gop and more conservatives are making the case that they no more want government in the bedroom. and i do believe on behalf of your cause, clarke, which i support, i think the more people come out and express themselves in terms of their orientation, the more that families become openly aware of it and become somewhat protective and basically become allies in this cause, and as it spreads and spreads and spreads, republicans as well as democratic and independent families join the cause for equality here, but is the republican platform going to change by 2012, sir? >> well, we're working on it and we're not only just working on it from within the party but just we're talking about grass roots. many of our chapter leaders in log cabin republicans across the nation are delegates to the convention. some of them are actually rnc eagles or the high donor level within the party.
5:21pm
the dialogue is already there, at a level that it hasn't been frankly. my dialogue with the rnc and the campaign committees are ongoing. not every member of the republican party, not every republican office holder is on the same page, but that's the whole point of why we're having dialogue. if i can get a member of congress to at least agree to certain aspects like employment non-discrimination, that begins a dialogue or if they agree to repeal of don't ask, don't tell, that's another foothold into the dialogue. some members of congress want to start out by talking tax equity in the next session of congress. we'll take that. the party is moving forward and getting back to basics. >> where it's not moving forward, i was watching the glenn beck rally the other day and i've got to tell you the christian right under palin and under the banner of palin and beck, trying to take that party from its secular roots, almost like a matchup with the middle east politics and try to turn it into a christian right party with some jewish conservatives but mainly a christian right party. they are trying to turn it into
5:22pm
that based upon god and jesus and all this in an incredibly un-american way turning a political party into a religious institution. i don't think it's going to help marriage equality. my thoughts now. what are yours? >> well, galeb for starters actually is fine with marriage equality, so, we're not going to get in here and talk about semantics about some libertarian movements or some other voices within the republican party. we can, but if we're talking about marriage equality, you happened to raise mr. beck's name. he's actually in support of it. >> i guess i don't hear that sound coming from the rally types, but your thoughts, joe. how do you read it? >> look, i completely agree with you, you know, us a laid out the situation with palin and beck, but it is interesting to note that, you know, maybe tactically, even glenn beck realizes that to have an intolerant view about marriage equality just doesn't square with growing the ranks of the republican party, and so whether that is his individual view or whether it's sort of a tactical acknowledgement that you're not going to grow the ranks of the base unless you start to ease
5:23pm
off on some of this stuff i think is an interesting thing to see, that, you know, whether he feels that way or not, he said marriage equality doesn't bother me. >> may not go too well with his new love power gambit. thank you. i know after kicking the democrats below the belts for months and months and months to decide to celebrate their victory going into november by acting like they are the good people. hey, thank you, clarke cooper. >> where is president obama on marriage equality, he's behind dick cheney. >> not with us. >> thank you. up next, they say george washington always told the truth. the same might not be said of mr. beck. we sought him in a big fib, a big fib. that's coming in the sideshow. you're watching "hardball" only on msnbc.
5:24pm
[ female announcer ] mousse temptations by jell-o.
5:25pm
decadently delicious. 60 calories. it's finally me o'clock. time for jell-o. try new chocolate mint sensation.
5:26pm
back to "hardball."
5:27pm
now to the sideshow. first, a whopper out of glenn beck. did you catch this colorful bit from saturday's rally? i have been going to mt. vernon. i went to the national archives, and i held the first inaugural address written in his own hand by george washington. >> well, beck held washington's inaugural address a priceless piece of history in his own hand. it never happened. a spokeswoman says during beck's vip tour he never got his hand on the speech. glenn beck in performance. former philadelphia eagle lineman jon runyan retired last year to run as a republican against democratic congressman john adler. here is adler's hilarious hand going offer him. >> this is congressional candidate jon runyan's house, nice, isn't it, cost millions except runyan didn't call it a house. tried to call it a farm. he bought one donkey to get a
5:28pm
$20,000 tax break by saying he lives on a farm. luckily he was caught. when new jersey families are fighting to make ends meet, jon runyan is trying to rip the system off. >> i love that sound. when runyan's campaign manager was asked back in january about this so-called farm, he said runyan was doing nothing illegal. that's a great defense, and that the former lineman considers himself, quote, a steward of the land. now for tonight's big number. billionaire jeff green isn't ready to move past his senate primary loss to kendrick meek. he's preparing a libel lawsuit against two florida newspapers, "the st. pete times" and "miami herald" for their reporting about potentially fraudulent real estate deals that green says cost him the primary. given the margin of 57% to 31%, by which he lost to congressman kendrick meek, pretty far fetch. how much is he looking for in
5:29pm
damages? $500 million. green says he would like to see the newspapers punished. the editor of "the st. pete times" says he stands by the reporting. green's $500 million beat the press lawsuit, tonight's big number. up next, many ney conservatives like what they heard from president obama in last night's oval office address on iraq. is the president moving to the right on foreign policy so he can move left here at home? you're watching "hardball" only on msnbc. you struggle to control your blood sugar. you exercise and eat right, but your blood sugar may still be high, and you need extra help. ask your doctor about onglyza, a once daily medicine used with diet and exercise to control high blood sugar in adults with type 2 diabetes. adding onglyza to your current oral medicine may help reduce after meal blood sugar spikes and may help reduce high morning blood sugar. [ male announcer ] onglyza should not be used to treat type 1 diabetes or diabetic ketoacidosis. tell your doctor if you have a history or risk of diabetic ketoacidosis. onglyza has not been studied with insulin.
5:30pm
using onglyza with medicines such as sulfonylureas may cause low blood sugar. some symptoms of low blood sugar are shaking, sweating and rapid heartbeat. call your doctor if you have an allergic reaction like rash, hives or swelling of the face, mouth or throat. ask your doctor if you also take a tzd as swelling in the hands, feet or ankles may worsen. blood tests will check for kidney problems. you may need a lower dose of onglyza if your kidneys are not working well or if you take certain medicines. [ male announcer ] ask your doctor about adding onglyza. extra help. extra control. you may be eligible to pay $10 a month with the onglyza value card program. but basically, i'm a runner. last year. (oof).
5:31pm
i had a bum knee that needed surgery. but it got complicated, because i had an old injury. so i wanted a doctor who had done this before. and unitedhealthcare's database helped me find a surgeon. you know you can't have great legs, if you don't have good knees. we're 78,000 people looking out for 70 million americans. that's health in numbers.
5:32pm
here's what's happening. police shot a man who was holding three people hostage at the discovery channel network's headquarters wednesday and all three were able to escape safely, officials said. montgomery county police chief thomas manger said he did not know whether police killed the gunman who was upset about the
5:33pm
network's programming. police spent several hours negotiating with him after he burst into the suburban washington building about 1:00 p.m. this afternoon waving a handgun and with canisters strapped to his body. an explosive device may have detonated, and the suspect may have brought other devices into the building. he said as far as he knows, the 1,900 people who work in the building were able to get out safely. a law enforcement official speaking on the condition of anonymity because the investigation was ongoing, said authorities had identified james jae lee as the likely suspect. now, back to "hardball." welcome back to "hardball." critics on the left ripped into president obama's iraq speech last night, but his address won praise from the right, especially ney conservatives. william kristol wrote, quote, the president seemed to me to go after about as far as an
5:34pm
anti-iraq war president could go in praising the war effort. not a bad tribute to the troops and not a bad statement of the importance, an indispensability of hard power. well, is the president taking a hawkish foreign policy approach so he can move the party and the country and the progressive direction back at home >> reporter:? michael crowley is the deputy bureau chief for "time" magazine and the associate editor for "washington post" joins us. let me start with michael. do you agree with me, he has a whole position on the right, hillary clinton over there, gates and petraeus over there, pretty much a keep going policy on afghanistan, basically a moderate departure from iraq, doing basically what bush would have done so he can go liberal and progressive at home. your thoughts. >> you make a good point, chris. he sent the signal right from the outset with his staffing decision putting in jones, friends with mccain and gates and hillary who obviously he criticized in the campaign for being hawkish. i think there's true. there's been a lot of continuity on iraq. bush moved in obama's direction.
5:35pm
he signed the agreement with the iraqis that really codified the withdrawals but when you look at things like pursuing the fight in afghanistan, continuing some pretty heavy detention policies around the world, including guantanamo bay still being open and military tribunals and that sort of thing, there is a a lot of continuity and it stands to reason, that democratic presidents traditionally as you know feel a little defensive about foreign policy, particularly one without military experience and his default instinct is to play it more cautious and conservative and try to push the agenda on the domestic side. >> but rajiv, this is the reason people voted for his fellow. we voted for his instinct back in 2002 when everybody was saber rattling and beating the drum for iraq, a bad war, he was out there saying, no, this didn't make sense. there's no reason for this war. he was eloquent, and now he gave a speech last night that sound like some republican from the hint hinterlands was offering a counter for what he was supposed to say. your thoughts? >> and, you know, he never came
5:36pm
out and really expressed last night some of the key reasons for why this whole war effort was a total mistake to begin with. you know, he sort of danced around it. now some people might say that wasn't the right time to do it. it was a moment to pay respect to what the troops had accomplished, but he -- he didn't really give the left anything in all of this, and you look at afghanistan, you know. he's a smart guy. he sees through, i think, some of the real challenges that the counterinsurgency mission there has, yet after three months of discussion at the white house he essentially gave the military everything it wanted and really hasn't gotten a whole lost credit for it. >> well said, the counterinsurgency strategy which is basically nation-building. let's take a look. here's the president telling soldiers at ft. bliss that the war in iraq made america safer, very important words from
5:37pm
yesterday. >> the fact of the matter is that because of the extraordinary service that all of you have done and so many people here at ft. bliss have done, iraq has an opportunity to create a better future for itself and america is more secure. >> you know, mikal, there's more than 100,000 iraqis dead because that have war and they are not better off and the whole world watched us kill them and got involved in that internecine fighting. does anyone think, including the president, that we have less hostility facing the world after seven years of us killing arabs on world television? >> no, i'm sure he didn't. i don't know that anyone does, and i think what you're seeing now is probably a man who feels the responsibility of being a national leader. these soldiers report up the chain of command to him. >> sure. >> i think he probably doesn't want any soldier feeling like he's reporting to a president who thinks that the guy is risking his life in vain. if you played some of the clips from the speech, the jefferson
5:38pm
jackson dinner, sort of a crystal ball thing in iowa in late 2007, people would have been going crazy and would have been furious. that is completely different tone, and i think it's just reflective, number one, of that kind of caution and conservatism we discussed before. number two, i think the tone he feels he has to strike as a commander in chief and as a national leader. >> you know, ed musky, one of the most thoughtful members of the senate that there ever was rajiv, he once said only talk when it improves the silence. what was gained by that speech last night? why didn't he just say, look, i salute the troops, they are great, they are courageous, they have sacrificed enormously in a war that's highly troubling to a lot of people. they are great, but i'm not going to say anything about the war tonight because everybody knows where i stood or he doesn't even have to say that, just imply that. >> you know, he wanted to claim credit for a campaign promise. >> i see. >> he wanted to do something i think to help energize his base in part, yet it left them feeling completely i think unfulfilled. you know, i thought one of the
5:39pm
most remarkable lines from that speech last night, chris, was him saying we've met our responsibility in iraq. >> yeah. >> can you imagine if as a candidate he was making that case, you know, the moral responsibility borne by the united states? sure, you know. violence is down from its peak during the civil war, but does anybody really think that lives of iraqis are all that much better? i mean, sure they are not living under the thumb of a dictator. >> i know. >> but of all that has transpired there and then to sort of assert, well, yes, we now have fulfilled our responsibility as americans. >> you know, i'm a huge fan of the writing of john padora like everybody else, one of the gifted writers out there, but he basically saluted the president last night and he's pretty much of a hawkish fellow. here's president obama pivoting from the iraq war to the economy. now maybe this is the purpose of the speech last night to say we're now going to have a peace dividend and we've got to use it. well, let's listen.
5:40pm
>> unfortunately, over the last decade we've not done what's necessary to shore up the foundations of our own prosperity. we spent $1 trillion at war, often financed by borrowing from overseas. this in turn has shortchanged investments in our own people and contributed to record deficits. and so at this moment, as we wind down the war in iraq, we must tackle those challenges at home with as much energy and grit and sense of common purpose as our men and women in uniform who have served abroad. they have met every test that they faced. now it's our turn. >> you know, sometimes i really support the president in a lot of his views, almost all of them almost, but i have to tell you something, michael, if he doesn't get rid of that teleprompter, it's like an eye test. he's reading words. it's separating him from us. your thoughts. you go to a meeting with him. businessmen are invited to meet
5:41pm
them at the white house, he hauls out the damn teleprompter. why even bring people into the room, have the teleprompter. i sense it's getting between him and us and i thought the speech last night was a terrible, or a great example rather of him using the teleprompter instead of his heart and his mind. he was reading words to us that any president could have written, had written for him and delivered. >> well, chris, i think most of his problems have to do with the economy being in the toilet. that's going to -- >> you don't want to respond to my teleprompter discourse. >> no, no, that was me saying a point, but, however, if there is a communication problem, i think obama was electrifying in the big halls with cheering crowds. he was funny and flashing that electric smile that he has, you know. he has his shirt off in his shirt sleeves and when he's behind the desk doing the professorial thing it's a little more stilted and not the flash and pizzazz of the observe ma who swept the country off his feet. it can be more kind of deadly.
5:42pm
to that extent i agree with you. the teleprompter doesn't bother me as much. it's more the scale. on the smaller scale he threatens to put you to sleep a little bit particularly when we had expectations raised by the giant crowds and stadium events that were so dazzling and electrifying in which he worked so well. >> the medium and the message, both, your views. >> you do the oval office address when you're launching the war, when you're trying to celebrate the fact that you're keeping a promise and your troops are coming home. go and do it in front of a military audience and go get a crowd. he did the talk at ft. bliss. they should have used a military audience and base for the primetime address. >> just left it at that. the teleprompter is a guy for this guy. i think it's his menace. thank you very much, roger crowley and rajiv. up next, palin power. sarah palin's influence has helped decide a slew of races and going after iowa after
5:43pm
having chalked up a big victory in alaska getting her candidate nominated to the united states senate, joe miller out of nowhere. she keeps coming and she keeps delivering and yet people keep doubting. when will they start doubting? more on "hardball" only on msnbc. [ male announcer ] gladys has always loved the scent of gain laundry detergent. and the moment she set eyes on gain fabric softener... she found herself overwhelmed with desire. ♪ ahhhhh, the things we do for love.
5:44pm
the amazing scent of gain in detergent, fabric softener, and now in a dish soap too. wow. sniff sniff hooray! another incumbent member of congress is out. senator lisa murkowski of alaska has conceded in the republican primary to tea party favorite joe miller. miller who was endorsed by sarah palin held a narrow lead after last week's primary and after a week of counting absentee ballots murkowski said late last night there was no scenario by which she could win, making her the seventh incumbent member of congress to lose this year. miller faces scott mcadam, the mayor of sitka, alaska. we'll right back. ♪
5:45pm
[ male announcer ] at ge capital, we're out there every day with clients like jetblue -- financing their fleet, sharing our expertise, and working with people who are changing the face of business in america.
5:46pm
after 25 years in the aviation business, i kind of feel like if you're not having fun at what you do, then you've got the wrong job. my landing was better than yours. no, it wasn't. yes, it was. was not. yes, it was. what do you think? take one of the big ones out? nah.
5:47pm
we're back. guess who is going to iowa? sarah palin. "the des moines register" reports palin will headline the iowa party's big ronald reagan fund-raiser on september 17th. the paper notes that a party
5:48pm
official said after playing hard to get for the past year, palin approached iowa republicans recently. micah joseph gross has a big piece on palin in the october issue of ""vanity fair,"" called "sarah palin, the sound and the furry" and msnbc's chef washington correspondent norah o'donnell also joins us. thank you so much, michael and thank you, nora, for joining us. you've been covering governor palin for all these months. michael, is she running for president? >> if you look at the connection she has with the crowds, if you look at the way that she compares herself to ronald reagan out there, if you feel the force of the connection, which sun like anything i've felt since i saw reagan give his last speeches, i don't see how you can come to any other conclusion. >> your reporting based upon everything that you've seen. is there anything out there that would be an impediment to her running, anything that would encourage her not to run, be it embarrassment, anything to make her make a run for it? what has she got to lose?
5:49pm
>> basically she's got her whole history. there is a town full of people up in wasilla. there is a whole crowd of people who she has alienated herself from who have been trampled, beaten down by this woman, who are so intimidated by her, that they have been too scared to speak out. >> but they will speak out if she runs, you think? >> i think they will. >> let's take a look at her at the glenn beck rally on saturday and then want to hear what nora thinks after reporting on her all this time. let's listen. >> and i know many of us today, we are worried about what we face. sometimes our challenges, they just seem insurmountable, but here together, at crossroads of our history, may this day, may this day be the change point. look around you. you're not alone. you are americans! you have the same steel spine and the moral courage of
5:50pm
washington and lincoln and lutd lieutenant. it is in you. it you as it sustained them. so with pride in the red, white, and blue, with gratitude to our men and women in uniform, let's stand together. let's stand with honor and restore america. >> wow. you know, i ignore her every time i hear her in that voice she develops on the platform. i hear tina fey. i hear tina fey doing her and it works for the crowd. can you give us -- i know you have to be objective, but is there any way you can read through the lines? she's going to iowa. she's an evangelical christian. she's playing the momma grizzly and the religious overtone. isn't that setting her up running as the christian woman in iowa? >> absolutely.
5:51pm
she's different in the other republicans who are white males who can't make the same connection with voters as she can. she's both vulnerable and problematic with all of her family issues. i've been on the road with her. it sounds better in person than it perhaps does on person. she does connect well with voters. i think that she's going to iowa is significant. not because she wanted to go to this dinner, but it suggests she has an interest in 2012, after sort of feigning that, in selling more books, but i think she's starting to like the adoration that she's getting out there. >> who wouldn't? >> she might be compelled by her staffers to consider something bigger. >> here's a line from the upcoming issue of "vanity fair." according to anyone who has ever known her, sarah palin has a great gift for making people feel good about themselves. michael, i've been reading your
5:52pm
piece. she has the ability to look in your eye and be focused on you. that is an ability of all great politicians. >> that's right. the problem is now, what she's doing, instead of just telling people that they're good, is planting in them the why would that they might not be good enough. what she's telling them is, they don't think you're smart enough, the democrats, obama. they don't think you know what's going on. they don't think you're good enough. >> well, that question is pretty good, and i want to go with that very question, michael, and your thoughts. it seems she has this sdi, the strategic defense that says, okay, i don't have to know all the answers, i don't have to read anything to be honest about it, as long as i am a mother who had a son in combat, i'm a regular person, that's her force field and she says no matter what the question, i don't need to know the answer because i'm an american mother. at what point does that become not even -- even ludicrous when
5:53pm
you're asked a question how are you going to deal with the middle east peace problems, how are you going to deal with nuclear technology around the world, what is a common sense solution when there are no common sense solution? when will the voters say, enough of this common sense line of yours, what's the answer? >> well, i feel like we should have reached that point a long time ago. the question has as much to do with when those of us who are sitting in these chairs and looking in these cameras are going to stop giving her the attention that feeds this fire. she's proven that she is a person for whom there is no matter to small to lie about. there is no distinction between fact and fiction. >> okay, we'll see how your piece runs. norah, you've covered her. how do you react to the piece you read by michael? >> i think it's fascinating and it captures really what is a complex person that sarah palin is. and that palin brand is exactly
5:54pm
what makes her so marketable. why she can sell 2 million books and why people come out in droves to see her. i also think what's fascinating is her use of the northstar. i mean, that is a great narrative, got presidential campaigns need a narrative. she can be this guide post when americans think the country is heading in the wrong direction. >> thank you, michael joseph gross for the big piece coming out in "vanity fair." hell of a magazine. when we return, i'll have advice for republicademocrats. make me . my eyes water. but now zyrtec®, the fastest 24-hour allergy relief, comes in a liquid gel. zyrtec® liquid gels work fast, so i can love the air®. thanks martha --
5:55pm
triggered my stop loss orders... saved me a pantload. [ crying ] oh great. every time i fly. my ears! swallow! [ male announcer ] upgrade to first class investing technology... at e-trade. ♪ [ male announcer ] he's sweet, even with 1/3 less sugar than soda. kool-aid delivering more smiles per gallon.
5:56pm
hey what's going on? doing the shipping. man, it would be a lot easier if we didn't have to weigh 'em all. if those boxes are under 70 lbs. you don't have to weigh 'em. with these priority mail flat rate boxes from the postal service, if it fits, it ships anywhere in the country for a low flat rate. no weigh? nope. no way. yeah. no weigh? sure. no way! uh-uh. no way. yes way, no weigh. priority mail flat rate box shipping starts at $4.95, only from the postal service. a simpler way to ship.
5:57pm
pediatrician recommended pain reliever for children. plus, children's advil® brings fever down faster than children's tylenol®. choose children's advil®. relief you can trust.
5:58pm
let me finish tonight with the politics of this november. if the republicans want to roll up the score, they're on the right path. energized by the tea party grassroots, driven by a nasty economy and by a ferocious propaganda campaign that paints the democrat in the white house as a terrorist sympathizer, they can do what they are doing. democrats have a tougher task. the hard nosed strategy is to play to your strengths. democrats have been trusted first and foremost on the economic basics, bread and butter, looking out for people in trouble. they're the party you vote for when you're worried about retiring and needing every cent
5:59pm
of that social security check you spent your life working for. democrats are also the people you tend to trust when you see that the grand loudly promised benefits of globalism and greater productivity are going to the boys on wall street, when your factory is closing, when you're being cut from a job. well, look, this is going to be a tough year for the democrats, but if they're smart, they'll talk about real ways to create jobs, making steel to build rail track and fast-moving trains, bringing big, big heavy good-paying industrial jobs back to put men and women to work here in our american neighborhoods because of real capital investments and rebuilding our subways and bridges, real jobs to replace the smell of decay with the smell of construction and real factory noise. you'll be mocked by the smoother, better off critics out there, but the working people will hear you as real and mr.